Ex Parte OBERMAIER - Page 5



                Appeal No. 2005-0324                                                                           
                Application No. 09/390,824                                                                     


                      effectively an insertable computer in and of itself.  There is no suggestion             
                      in Cranston III et al. to arbitrarily use features from an insertable computer           
                      to augment an existing card carrier.  Thus, when these references are                    
                      considered as a whole, they fail to provide a suggestion to combine the                  
                      cited references to form the claimed invention.  The attempt to combine                  
                      the features from these entirely distinct devices amounts to nothing more                
                      than hindsight reconstruction, picking and choosing among isolated                       
                      disclosures in the prior art.  (emphasis original).                                      
                      In response to the appellant’s arguments, the examiner states, on page 9                 
                of the answer:                                                                                 
                      Cranston teaches the use of a bulkhead for providing an external                         
                      connection means to electrically connect the circuit board to an external                
                      component (col. 4, lines 58-62).  Thus, it would have been obvious to a                  
                      person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was                 
                      made to use a card including a bulkhead in the device of Moss as taught                  
                      by Cranston, to provide an external connection to the card.                              
                      We agree with the examiner and find that it would have been obvious to                   
                one of ordinary skill in the art to use a card with a bulkhead in the expansion card           
                carrier of Moss.  In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears                
                the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.  In re                   
                Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  See                      
                also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                  
                It is the burden of the examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the             
                art would have been led to the claimed invention by the express teachings or                   
                suggestions found in the prior art, or by the implication contained in such                    
                teachings or suggestions.  In re Sernaker 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6                     
                (Fed. Cir. 1983).  “The motivation, suggestion or teaching may come explicitly                 
                from statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,           

                                                      -5-                                                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007